coastalcph/lex_glue huggingface dataset:
7.  The applicant was born in 1936 and lives in Kamień Pomorski, Poland.
8.  The applicant was a manager of the Kamień Pomorski health resort. On 14 May 1990 he filed an action with the Szczecin Regional Court (Sąd Wojewódzki), in which he requested that a certain A.P. (“the defendant”) be ordered to stop spreading information damaging to the good name of the applicant and to retract in the press his defamatory statements.
9.  Subsequently, the court held hearings on 2 July and 5 September 1990.
10.  On 3 October 1990 the court held a hearing. It heard a witness and decided to stay the proceedings until the completion of proceedings concerning the applicant’s dismissal from the position of manager. On 27 December 1991 the dismissal proceedings were terminated.
11.  On 30 January 1992 the applicant requested the court to resume the defamation proceedings. On 7 December 1992 the trial court resumed the proceedings.
12.  On 5 March 1993 the court adjourned a hearing, because of the lack of the defendant’s pleadings in the case file.
13.  On 11 August 1993 the applicant extended his claim.
14.  On 21 October 1994 the court held a hearing.
15.  On 6 December 1995 the court adjourned a hearing at the defendant’s request.
16.  On 24 January 1996 the court closed the examination of the case and announced that the judgment would be delivered on 7 February 1996. On 6 February 1996 the court reopened the examination of the case and decided that the defendant would be heard in Kamień Pomorski. On 19 February 1996 the court heard the defendant.
17.  On 28 February 1996 the Szczecin Regional Court gave judgment. It ordered the defendant to retract his statements concerning the applicant in certain newspapers at his own expense.
18.  On 8 August 1996 the applicant received a copy of the judgment. Subsequently, the defendant lodged an appeal against that judgment.
19.  On 12 November 1996 the Poznań Court of Appeal (Sąd Apelacyjny) held a hearing and on 21 November 1996 it gave judgment. The court quashed the judgment of the Szczecin Regional Court and remitted the case for re-examination.
20.  Despite numerous complaints by the applicant and his lawyer, the Szczecin Regional Court listed no hearing until 12 May 1999. On 12 January 1999 the applicant’s lawyer complained to the President of the Poznań Regional Court about the delay in the proceedings. In a reply of 27 January 1999, the President of the Regional Court admitted that the complaint was justified.
21.  On 12 May 1999 the court held a hearing.
22.  On 28 June 2000 the Szczecin Regional Court held a hearing. It heard the applicant and adjourned the examination of the case for the purpose of hearing the defendant before the Kamień Pomorski District Court. The defendant was heard on 25 August 2000.
23.  The next hearing was listed for 29 December 2000. The court closed the examination of the case and informed the parties that the judgment would be delivered on 12 January 2001. On 26 January 2001 the court gave judgment and dismissed the applicant’s claim. On an unspecified date, in the second half of 2001, he appealed against the judgment.
24.  It appears that the proceedings are pending.
7.   The applicant is an Italian national, born in 1906 and living in Rome.
8.  A.M.G. was the owner of a flat in Rome, which she had let to M.T.
9.  In a writ served on the tenant on 31 December 1990, the owner informed the tenant of her intention to terminate the lease on expiry of the term on 30 June 1991 and summoned him to appear before the Rome Magistrate.
10.  By a decision of 7 May 1991, which was made enforceable on the same day, the Rome Magistrate upheld the validity of the notice to quit and ordered that the premises be vacated by 31 May 1992.
11.  On 13 December 1994, the owner served notice on the tenant requiring him to vacate the premises.
12.  On 3 May 1995, she served notice on the tenant informing him that the order for possession would be enforced by a bailiff on 30 May 1995.
13.  Between 30 May 1995 and 30 January 1997, the bailiff made eight attempts to recover possession. Each attempt proved unsuccessful, as the owner was not entitled to police assistance in enforcing the order for possession.
14.  On an unspecified date of 1995, the applicant, became the owner of the flat.
15.  On 30 May 1997, she served notice on the tenant requiring him to vacate the premises. On 14 July 1997, she served notice on the tenant informing him that the order for possession would be enforced by a bailiff on 25 July 1997.
16.  Between 25 July 1997 and 11 September 1998, the bailiff made five attempts to recover possession. Each attempt proved unsuccessful, as the applicant was not entitled to police assistance in enforcing the order for possession.
17.  On 13 October 1998, she served notice on the tenant informing him that the order for possession would be enforced by a bailiff on 11 November 1998.
18.  Between 11 November 1998 and 16 November 1999, the bailiff made four attempts to recover possession. Each attempt proved unsuccessful, as the applicant was not entitled to police assistance in enforcing the order for possession.
19.  On 19 October 2000, the applicant served notice on the tenant requiring him to vacate the premises.
20.  On 9 November 2000, she served notice on the tenant informing him that the order for possession would be enforced by a bailiff on 7 December 2000.
21.  On 7 December 2000, the bailiff made one attempt to recover possession which proved unsuccessful, as the applicant was not entitled to police assistance in enforcing the order for possession.
22.  Subsequently, pursuant to Law no. 388 of 23 December 2000 and to Law Decree no. 247 of 2 July 2001, the eviction proceedings have been suspended until 31 December 2001.
6.  The applicant is an Italian national, born in 1958 and living in Rome. M.V. was the owner of a flat in Rome, which he had let to T.C.
7.  In a registered letter of 24 June 1983, the owner informed the tenant that he intended to terminate the lease on expiry of the term on 31 December 1983 and asked her to vacate the premises by that date.
8.  The tenant told the owner that she would not leave the premises.
9.  In a writ served on the tenant on 3 August 1984, the owner reiterated his intention to terminate the lease and summoned the tenant to appear before the Rome Magistrate.
10.  By a decision of 3 December 1984, which was made enforceable on the same day, the Rome Magistrate upheld the validity of the notice to quit and ordered that the premises be vacated by 3 December 1985.
11.  On an unspecified date, the owner served notice on the tenant requiring her to vacate the premises.
12.  On an unspecified date, he served notice on the tenant informing her that the order for possession would be enforced by a bailiff on 23 April 1987.
13.  Between 23 April 1987 and 14 February 1989, the bailiff made eleven attempts to recover possession. Each attempt proved unsuccessful, as the owner was not entitled to police assistance in enforcing the order for possession.
14.  In the meanwhile, on 12 December 1988, the applicant became the owner of the apartment and pursued the enforcement proceedings.
15.  Between 13 June 1989 and 27 July 2000, the bailiff made thirty-nine attempts to recover possession. Each attempt proved unsuccessful, as the applicant was not entitled to police assistance in enforcing the order for possession.
16.  On 20 June 2000, the applicant recovered possession of the flat with the assistance of the police.
7.  The applicant lives in Grottaferrata (Rome).
8.  She is the owner of a flat in Rome, which she had let to B.F.R.
9.  In a writ served on the tenant on 4 February 1991, the applicant informed the tenant of her intention to terminate the lease on expiry of the term on 31 December 1991 and summoned her to appear before the Rome Magistrate.
10.  By a decision of 29 May 1991, which was made enforceable on the same day, the Rome Magistrate upheld the validity of the notice to quit and ordered that the premises be vacated by 31 July 1992.
11.  On 7 October 1992, 20 September 1995 and 10 February 2000, the applicant served notice on the tenant requiring her to vacate the premises.
12.  On 7 December 1992, she served notice on the tenant informing her that the order for possession would be enforced by a bailiff on 15 December 1992.
13.  Between 15 December 1992 and 25 February 1993, the bailiff made three attempts to recover possession. Each attempt proved unsuccessful, as the applicant was not entitled to police assistance in enforcing the order for possession.
14.  On 13 October 1995, she served notice on the tenant informing her that the order for possession would be enforced by a bailiff on 31 October 1995.
Between 31 October 1995 and 6 November 1996, the bailiff made six attempts to recover possession. Each attempt proved unsuccessful, as the applicant was not entitled to police assistance in enforcing the order for possession.
15.  On 28 February 2000, she served notice on the tenant informing her that the order for possession would be enforced by a bailiff on 24 March 2000.
16.  Between 24 March 2000 and 13 July 2000, the bailiff made four attempts to recover possession. Each attempt proved unsuccessful, as, the applicant was not entitled to police assistance in enforcing the order for possession.
17.  On 24 July 2000, the applicant recovered possession of the flat.
7.  The applicant was born in 1932 and lives in Benevento.
8.  He is the owner of a flat in Benevento, which he had let to N.C.
9.  In a writ served on the tenant on 27 April 1994, the applicant informed the tenant of his intention to terminate the lease and summoned the tenant to appear before the Benevento Magistrate.
10.  By a decision of 25 May 1994, which was made enforceable on the same day, the Benevento Magistrate upheld the validity of the notice to quit and ordered that the premises be vacated by 30 November 1996.
11.  On 30 November 1996, the applicant served notice on the tenant requiring him to vacate the premises.
12.  On 10 February 1997, he served notice on the tenant informing him that the order for possession would be enforced by a bailiff on 25 February 1997.
13.  Between 25 February 1997 and 9 November 1998, the bailiff made nine attempts to recover possession. Each attempt proved unsuccessful, as the applicant was not entitled to police assistance in enforcing the order for possession.
14.  Pursuant to Section 6 of Law no. 431/98, the tenant asked the Benevento District Court to set a new date for the enforcement of the order for possession. The date was set for 25 April 2000 and then for 30 September 2000.
15.  On 12 October 2000, the applicant served notice on the tenant requiring him to vacate the premises.
16.  On 4 November 2000, he served notice on the tenant informing him that the order for possession would be enforced by a bailiff on 27 November 2000.
17.  Between 27 November 2000 and 26 April 2001, the bailiff made four attempts to recover possession. Each attempt proved unsuccessful, as the applicant was not entitled to police assistance.
18.  A new attempt of the bailiff to enforce the order for possession was set for 21 June 2001.
19.  On 8 August 2001, the applicant recovered possession of the flat.
5.  On 23 May 1988 the applicant filed an action for damages with the Košice I District Court. He claimed compensation from several persons on the ground that his house had been damaged as a result of a road traffic accident.
6.  On 3 November 1993 the Košice I District Court allowed the applicant’s claims in part.
7.  The applicant and one of the defendants appealed. The case file was submitted to the Košice Regional Court on 27 February 1995. On 24 August 1995 the latter quashed a part of the first instance judgment and ordered the District Court to take further evidence on the relevant claims.
8.  The District Court instructed an expert to submit an opinion, and it heard the parties on 18 December 1995 and on 23 April 1996. A second expert was appointed by a decision delivered on 2 December 1997. He submitted the opinion on 31 December 1997. The applicant challenged both the expert and the District Court judge.
9.  The case file was submitted to the Regional Court, between 12 January 1998 and 12 March 1998, which granted the applicant’s request for exclusion of the District Court judge.
10.  On 23 July 1998 the District Court asked the parties to submit comments on the expert opinion. The applicant replied on 3 August 1998.
11.  The case was adjourned on 26 October 1998, on 30 November 1998, on 8 February 1999 and on 22 March 1999. On 20 July 1999 the District Court appointed another expert who submitted her opinion on 17 September 1999. Hearings before the District Court were held on 2 May 2000 and on 30 October 2000.
12.  On 24 October 2000 the Constitutional Court found that the Košice I District Court had violated the applicant’s constitutional right to have his case examined without undue delay. In its finding, the Constitutional Court held that the complex character of the case could not, on its own, justify the overall length of the proceedings, and that no delays in the proceedings could be imputed to the applicant. The Constitutional Court further held that the Košice I District Court had remained inactive for an overall period of approximately four years.
13.  On 15 January 2001 the Košice I District Court delivered a second judgment on the case. It became final on 11 May 2001.
5.  On 24 February 1999 the applicant claimed before the Prešov District Court that the maintenance which her former husband had been earlier ordered to pay in respect of their two minor children should be increased.
6.  The first hearing in the case was scheduled for 24 May 2000.
7.  On 1 June 2000 the Constitutional Court found that the Prešov District Court had violated the applicant’s constitutional right to have her case examined without undue delay. In its finding, the Constitutional Court held, in particular, that what was at stake for the applicant required special diligence and that the District Court had remained inactive for approximately fifteen months. The Constitutional Court considered irrelevant that the delay was due to the heavy workload of the judges.
8.  On 8 November 2000 the Prešov District Court increased the maintenance due by the applicant’s former husband with retroactive effect.
9.  The applicant appealed and claimed that the increase awarded should be higher.
10.  On 31 May 2001 the Prešov Regional Court delivered a judgment by which it increased the sums which the applicant’s former husband was to pay. The Regional Court’s judgment was served on the applicant on 25 July 2001.
7.  The applicant was born in 1948 and is currently serving a sentence of imprisonment in HMP Verne.
8.  The applicant owned a garage in Dorset and had business connections in Spain. He had two Mercedes cars each of which had a false compartment in the fuel tank. The false compartments could hold up to 45 kilograms of cannabis resin. From 1994 he was suspected by the police of being involved in drug trafficking. The police also suspected him of being involved in the handling of stolen goods, including stolen vehicles.
9.  On 22 February 1995 he was arrested by the Dorset police in relation to their suspicions of his handling stolen goods. Whilst he was in custody, a listening device was installed at his garage premises which remained there and active until 26 July 1995 when it was discovered.
10.  On 30 December 1996 an indictment was signed charging the applicant with conspiracy to import controlled drugs and conspiracy to supply controlled drugs, namely cannabis. The prosecution evidence against the applicant relied on tape recordings made from the listening device which had been installed by the police at the applicant’s garage premises. It was acknowledged by the prosecution that without the evidence from the tapes, there was no prima facie case against the applicant.
11.  The applicant objected to the admission of the tape recordings as evidence in his trial. He argued inter alia that the original grant of authority and the renewal of authority for the placement of the listening device were not in compliance with the Home Office Guidelines, which governed the use of surveillance equipment by the police at the relevant time. He submitted that his prosecution ought to be stayed as an abuse of the process of the court, alternatively the tape evidence should be excluded under section 78 of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 (“PACE”).
12.  A preliminary hearing was held on the matter of the admissibility of the tape recordings. His Honour Judge Pryor QC held on 8 July 1997 that he was satisfied that the original authority for the use of the surveillance equipment was properly granted and that there were proper grounds for renewal, though he made some criticism of the lack of documentation on the renewals and noted that there had been a technical infringement in that one renewal took place a day late. The judge concluded that the tapes were admissible as evidence and should not be excluded under section 78 of PACE.
13.  Following the admission of the tapes as evidence, the applicant pleaded guilty to the charges of conspiracy to import controlled drugs and conspiracy to supply controlled drugs, namely cannabis. On 5 September 1997 he was sentenced to five years’ imprisonment.
14.  The applicant was granted leave to appeal against his conviction. On 24 September 1997, the Court of Appeal held that in the light of the applicant’s pleas of guilty his convictions could not be regarded as “unsafe” and rejected his appeal.
5.  On 22 February 1989 the applicant filed a claim for damages with the Košice 1 District Court. He claimed compensation from a person whom a criminal court had previously convicted of the offence of wounding the applicant.
6.  An expert appointed by the court submitted his opinion on 24 February 1990. On 22 March 1991 the applicant requested that a supplementary expert opinion be ordered. A second expert was appointed in 1991. On 7 February 1994 he returned the case file to the District Court with the explanation that the applicant had failed to attend an examination. On 21 June 1995 the expert was again requested to submit an opinion. The expert returned the case file to the District Court on 29 April 1997 without having elaborated an opinion. On 9 June 1997 the District Court imposed a procedural fine on the expert.
7.  On 16 February 1998 the Constitutional Court found that the applicant’s constitutional right to a hearing without delays had been violated in the proceedings before the Košice 1 District Court. In its decision the Constitutional Court noted that the case was not complex and that the District Court had failed to ensure that the case be proceeded with without delays.
8.  On 7 September 1998 the applicant extended his action.
9.  On 25 September 1998 the Košice 1 District Court awarded damages to the applicant in accordance with his original action. It further dismissed the applicant’s request that the action be extended.
10.  Both the applicant and the defendant appealed.
11.  On 25 May 2000 the Košice Regional Court upheld the first instance judgment.
5.  On 2 January 1995 the applicant filed an action for rehabilitation with the Bratislava City Court. He alleged that he had been persecuted for political reasons between 1972 and 1973 and claimed compensation. On 6 February 1995 the City Court decided to transfer the case to the Bratislava I District Court for reasons of jurisdiction.
6.  On 11 March 1996 the District Court discontinued the proceedings on the ground that the applicant had failed to substantiate his action. On 26 June 1996 the Bratislava City Court quashed the District Court’s decision of 11 March 1996.
7.  On 19 May 1997 the District Court dismissed the applicant’s request for waiver of court fees. On 28 August 1997 the Bratislava Regional Court upheld this decision. Between 24 September 1996 and 30 October 1998 the Bratislava I District Court took several procedural steps.
8.  The first hearing was scheduled for 25 March 1999. The case was adjourned as the applicant could not attend. On 20 May 1999 the case had to be adjourned again as the applicant’s summons had been sent to a wrong address.
9.  On 2 September 1999 the Constitutional Court found that the Bratislava I District Court had violated the applicant’s constitutional right to have his case examined without undue delays. In its finding the Constitutional Court noted, in particular, that the Bratislava I District Court had failed to proceed with the case in an appropriate manner.
9.  The applicant was born in 1956 and lives in Istanbul.
10.  On 15 September 1981 police officers from the Ankara Security Directorate arrested the applicant at his mother’s house in the Safranbolu district of Zonguldak on suspicion of membership of an illegal organisation, the Dev-Yol (Revolutionary Way). He was placed in custody at the Ankara Security Directorate. The applicant stated during his questioning that he had hidden ammunition belonging to the organisation in the chimney of his mother’s house. A search was conducted of the house and a large number of weapons and bullets, including a Kalashnikov automatic rifle and dynamite, were recovered.
11.  On 27 October 1981 the applicant was brought before the Military Court judge who ordered his detention on remand.
12.  On 26 February 1982 the public prosecutor at the Ankara Martial Law Court, whose jurisdiction covered Ankara, Çankırı and Kastamonu provinces, indicted the applicant together with 723 others. The charges against the defendants included membership of Dev-Yol, an organisation which aimed to replace the constitutional order with a Marxist-Leninist regime contrary to Article 146 of the Turkish Criminal Code. The applicant was further charged with robbery, bombing and armed attacks against persons, and opening fire on three houses.
13.  On 11 November 1987, having spent more than six years in prison, the applicant was released pending trial.
14.  After martial law was lifted, the Ankara Martial Law Court was subsequently designated as the Martial Law Court attached to the 4th Army Corps.
15.  On 19 July 1994 the Martial Law Court found the applicant guilty of the aforementioned offences. It was also established that the ammunition found in the house of the applicant’s mother had been used in various illegal activities. The applicant was convicted of an offence under Article 146 § 3 of the Turkish Criminal Code. The applicant appealed to the Military Court of Cassation (Askeri Yargıtay).
16.  On 26 December 1994 following the promulgation of Law no. 3953 of 27 December 1993 which abolished the jurisdiction of the Martial Courts, the case-file was transferred from the Military Court of Cassation to the Criminal Division of the Court of Cassation (Yargıtay Ceza Dairesi).
17.  On 27 December 1995 the Court of Cassation quashed the judgment of the first instance court and sent the case-file to the Ankara Assize Court so that the applicant could be sentenced under Article 146 § 1 of the Turkish Criminal Code which prescribed capital punishment for the category of offence of which the applicant was convicted.
18.  On 16 July 2002 the Ankara Assize Court found the applicant guilty under Article 146 § 1 of the Turkish Criminal Code and sentenced him to death. This sentence was commuted to a life sentence. The applicant’s appeal against this judgment is at present pending before the Court of Cassation.